Gonzalez vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation [G.R. No. 164904] Case Digest

 

Gonzalez vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 164904

 

Facts:

Petitioner Gonzalez, for and in behalf of Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation, acknowledged receipt of various golfing equipments and assorted Walt Disney items, and signed the corresponding two Trust Receipt agreements. When the due dates of subject Trust Receipts came; HSBC demanded from MLRC the turnover of the proceeds of the sale of the assorted goods covered by the Trust Receipts or the return of said goods. Despite demand, however, MLRC failed to return the assorted goods or their value. A complaint filed by respondent HSBC against petitioner Gonzalez for estafa, more particularly, the violation of Presidential Decree No. 115, in relation to Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

City Prosecutor found probable cause to hold petitioner Gonzalez liable for two counts of estafa. Petitioner Gonzalez appealed the foregoing resolution of the City Prosecutor to the DOJ by means of a petition for review. DOJ denied the petition. Petitioner Gonzalez went to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. CA denied the petition for lack of merit.

 

Issue:

Whether or not there is probable cause to hold petitioner Gonzalez liable to stand trial for violation of Presidential Decree No. 115, in relation to Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof. (Manebo vs Acosta)  A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. 

The executive department of the government is accountable for the prosecution of crimes, its principal obligation being the faithful execution of the laws of the land. A necessary component of the power to execute the laws is the right to prosecute their violators. Corollary to this, the right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion, the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors.